Which one of the inexperienced is worst? by kaneman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Which one of the inexperienced is worst?

POSTED BY: KANEMAN
UPDATED: Sunday, November 21, 2010 17:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 568
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:34 AM

Thinking about this President and his Cabinet. Which of these "in over their heads", inexperienced, and clueless appointees is worst. Which is doing the most damage?

Napolitano?
Salazar?
Holder?

Or scarier even, is the answer Obama?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 5:29 AM

DREAMTROVE

Salazar.

Before elaborating, good thread topic. I mean, the culling of members of the administration is something that the left should definitely join in on.

Mike, remember back to like, yesterday, when we got into a spat on this topic?

*THIS* is the issue. If the left *doesn't* stand up to these people, then you let *them* decide what it means to be on the left.

Back during the Bush admin. there was much calling for heads to roll from the right of the heads of the Bush admin. Okay, I don't remember if Rap called for any, but certainly there was calling.

The left must do the same. It really doesn't do a look of good for those of us who *aren't* self identifying lefties to call for heads to roll on the left, because the left assumes we oppose all of the left (*we don't) But what it means to be left is defined by its leaders.

This is why I say "not left" is not the same as "is right" because I don't like who took up the right banner and defined right. I think they're some sort of neofascist.

I *do* like the *potential* of the tea party to be some sort of "right" OR some sort of "independent" that I could identify with. Right now, I'm a Tory, which is right in Britain, but not really right in America.

Okay back to Kane's question:

Salazar is a menace to the planet. He should probably be jailed, but certainly fired. He's a one many enemy of the Earth. And here I mean the environment. He has sold out Appalachia, the Guld of Mexico and now NY and Penn to mining interests. He's a hack and an industry whore.

Janet Napolitano is a menace, sure enough. She should resign. Or Obama should ask her to.

I'm not sure I'm joining in the chorus to call for the head of Eric Holder. If I'm missing something, please clue me in.

That said, I'm going to quibble with one word:

Incompetent.

I don't think this is the problem, and it's not where I personally would like to see the dialogue go. I think that this leads us into a false sense of security thinking that "insiders" or "experienced" people are safer to have in power. I don't need a "security expert" (no offense) to run homeland security, I need a sane and rational human being who would think that this TSA plan was lunacy.

Similarly with Salazar. I need someone who isn't hopelessly corrupt. Salazar is plenty qualified to do the job, but he's also ten times the crook he has to be to destroy this country, and I do mean physically destroy it.

Barrack Obama is a "Constitutional Scholar." Yes, I'll grant, he has all the credentials, he's an expert in the subject. But has this led him to protect the constitution? Or abuse it like hell?

Ben Bernanke is an Expert on the Great Depression. Does this mean that he uses this knowledge to stop one? Or to create one?

Competent people can be very scary.

Sometimes what you need is just normal sane humans capable of listening, researching, and learning.

As I just said to Mike in another post: Democrats, you have better people than this. Call for those heads to roll. The republicans did, and okay, sometimes Bush came up with replacements who are just as bad, but if you trust in your party at all, you have to believe that they can do better than this.

But they're not going to if you don't ask.

ETA:

Mike,

I know you don't like Napolitano's version of "security" but if you stay a loyal team player to team blue, they you have to accept that this is the left's *official* security position.

The left, the Democrats, in Napolitano, has decided to grope and scan. If that's not who you are, then attack it, and say "this is not who we are."

This is what I did throughout the Bush years.

By the end, I was so disgusted, I gave up entirely. To make matters worse, a lot of morons on the right redefined right as hating Mexicans. That's moronic. I don't want to be a part of a group that hates Mexicans.

But if I refuse to rejoin the loyal idiocy of the always pull the Blue lever crowd, then that's just me using my brain. I worked for the DNC, I know who these guys are, and what they stand for, and it is very far from where their voters stand.

And as long as the voters *don't* take the DNC into the back room and rough them up a bit, this gap is going to stay, because the DNC is run by the same self satisfied ruling class pricks that run the RNC.

If you don't want the left to be what Kaneman says it is, then take it to task, and move it to what you think is left. 'cause right now, it looks like the left is just what Kaneman says it is. A bunch of power hungry self satisfied dicks who want nothing more than to force their will on the rest of us. I see nothing caring at all about the *functioning* left of americans who are "in office." This is a serious gap for the voters. The voters care. I already granted that earlier. Your politicians don't.

Did you see what Bill Clinton did with Haiti? He collected a couple billion and has spent a couple million, getting like 5,000 vaccines for his own staff in Haiti, screw everyone else. Okay, Bush, sure, has done zip. But that's not the comparison you want.

I grant that the GOP is a disaster. Hence the desire to help the tea party overthrow it. I'd like what Ron Paul would like, the tea party to be bi partisan like it was before, and overthrow the democrats.

But also, I want you to get why I think it *isn't* that right now:

It's not that the GOP has forced democrats out.

It's that the Democratic party has been pushing through the media tons of anti-tea party propaganda to keep democrats out of the tea party.

This isn't because they think those democrats would vote republican, it's that the DNC wants to remain corrupt.

So does the RNC, sure. But we'll see about that.

I know you don't like what various members of the administration are doing, but if you are loyal to them, they stand for you, and their position becomes your effective position.

So don't be a loyal sheep. Be a political insurgent. Make the dems into a better party than they are. Don't just stand there and defend what they are right now, because deep down, I feel confident that you are as appalled by what the dems are today as I am about what the GOP is today.

Rolling out the tanks in Afghanistan?

I know that's not your idea of liberal.

Neither is big handouts to the FED

Or bodyscans and pat downs

Or domestic assassination programs and international torture prisons

Obama is far more eloquent than Bush, so he's not about to spell it out as "You're with us or against us" but he's basically said as much.

Personally, I say screw partisan differences. Sure, we disagree on abortion. Who gives a fuck. We agree on the war, and the corporate corruption, and civil liberties, and the environment, we agree on far more than we disagree, so lets just make these cretins fall in line with their constituents, or sink them to the bottom of the political sea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 9:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT,

Quote:
The left, the Democrats, in Napolitano, has decided to grope and scan. If that's not who you are, then attack it, and say "this is not who we are."

I believe everyone HERE, right, left and otherwise, has attacked it. Can you give a good argument that, if the Republicans were still in office, they’d have done otherwise? Given the intrusions into our private lives of the Bush Administration, I’d venture to say they wouldn’t have. They were very much in favor of “security” over personal freedom, from all evidence...

Uh, as to

Quote:
A bunch of power hungry self satisfied dicks who want nothing more than to force their will on the rest of us. I see nothing caring at all about the *functioning* left of americans who are "in office." This is a serious gap for the voters. The voters care. I already granted that earlier. Your politicians don't.

I would say, again, that describes the right as well as the left. That almost precisely describes the administration and legislators of the previous administration, their ACTIONS as well as their words.

Quote:
It's that the Democratic party has been pushing through the media tons of anti-tea party propaganda to keep democrats out of the tea party.

This isn't because they think those democrats would vote republican, it's that the DNC wants to remain corrupt.

I disagree wholeheartedly, and apparently (from the poll I posted), so do the American people. About half of THEM think the Tea Party’s gotten a square deal by the media, and when you’ve got kooks like O’Donnel, Angle, Palin and more spouting the things they do, I’d be shocked if the media DIDN’T cover them extensively! I don’t think the Dems had to do a damn thing but sit back and let them shoot themselves in the foot!

Your very premise is fallacious, in my view. Those of us HERE have decried all the things you listed; but all we can do is vote, unless you expect us to pick up arms and march on the Capitol...which the right-wingers have repeatedly threatened to do if they didn’t get their way! I don’t think there’s a liberal here who goes by the “pull the blue lever” mentality, not from what I’ve seen posted; yet I’ve rarely if ever seen anyone self-identified on the right as coming out against something the GOP did; rather I see them defending it, even with specious arguments. And I find it interesting that you rail against us for not standing up to the current administration/Congress, I sure didn’t see much, if any, of it during the Bush Administration—tho’ I wasn’t here then, I’d bet that was true here, too.

You know, I’ve listened to Obama and other dem pundits, etc., and I haven’t heard a lot of “you’re with us or against us”. But by gawd, I about heard it every DAY from the Republicans, and even NOW, even HERE, any attempt at upholding American values (i.e., courts, the law, freedom of speech, equality for all, civil liberties) is a lot louder from the left than from the right, currently. Any perspective brought to the question of terrorism gets us called terrorist sympathizers; any desire to NOT see the rich get horrendous tax cuts gets us called Socialists; any disagreement with how illegal immigrants are being approached results in us being called un-American; the idea we should prosecute terrorists in the courts (which did a better job than the tribunals) brings bout screams that we don’t care about American lives, and on and on and on.

I see and hear more of the left bringing proportion and common sense to the discussion; I see and hear more of the right screaming visceral buzz words and talking black and white.

I say again; I can’t know what you did during the Bush Administration, I wasn’t here, but what I’m seeing NOW is a distinct bias against the left, with little recriminations toward the right. You can speak for yourself when saying those of you not self-identifying as left don’t oppose everything the left does, but I’d venture to suggest you are in the minority, and DEFINITELY out of touch with the actual right.

There is no way WE can shake up the party. If you think there is, please say so. I, for one, vote with my conscience as best I can (when there are only two viable choices, as in most of my life, I choose the “lesser of two evils”). I write e-mails, but most of MY representatives act in ways with which I agree (remember, Boxer voted AGAINST the wars). So I can write the Prez, which I do, but any LEGISLATORS I write to, aside from my own, don’t give diddly-squat what I have to say; I’m not their constituent. So tell us; how do we achieve what you’re suggesting?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 12:56 PM

DREAMTROVE

Niki

Quote:
Can you give a good argument that, if the Republicans were still in office, they’d have done otherwise?

Of course not, why should they? It wasn't a defense of the GOP. Or an attack on the left, except that when the GOP stepped over the line, it appeared to attack the republican admin. more than the dem voters are attacking Obama. It was an observation, for use by the left if they care to step up to the plate.

I have no love of the GOP, I'm sure they would've done the same.

Quote:
I would say, again, that describes the right as well as the left.

Sure, there's not a lick of dif. between the Dems and the GOP leadership. This is about the right wing voters taking their republicans to task for sucking.

What I see is that rather than the left copying the action, and launching their own tea party equiv against their own neolib authoritarian dems, instead they seem content to attack the republican voters who are trying to fix the GOP. It looks petty and partisan. Let the tea party try to clean up their house, and get busy cleaning your own.

Quote:

That almost precisely describes the administration and legislators of the previous administration, their ACTIONS as well as their words.

Again, thank you for making my point for me: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The Obama admin for all practical purposes *is* the Bush admin.

In order for there to be a change in policy that would differentiate the two, the left voters would have to do something about it. Something like launching their own political insurgency, rather than whining about the republicans attempt to oust the neocons.

and, if all the left does is attack those who attack the neocons, and then turn around and defend the dem neolibs, the left ends up looking very neolib/neocon aka authoritarian.

Quote:
Tea Party’s gotten a square deal by the media

Yes, they have. It's in part because murdoch likes them, and in part because they did something and became news.

Quote:
I don’t think the Dems had to do a damn thing but sit back and let them shoot themselves in the foot!

Apparently, right into office

Quote:
Your very premise is fallacious, in my view.

This is not a great opening line for any persuasive argument.

Quote:
all we can do is vote

Nonsense. Here's a book to pick up: Take Back Your Government by Robert A. Heinlein.
Among other things he says "Why should people who devote 15 minutes every couple of years think that they are going to have as much say in govt. as those who devote their whole lives to it?" And sure, you don't have to devote your life to it, but he has a point: What you get out of it depends on what you put into it. Voting is the least effective thing you could do.

Quote:
unless you expect us to pick up arms and march on the Capitol

that's nonsense.

Quote:
right-wingers have repeatedly threatened to do if they didn’t get their way!

They're asserting their first amendment right to freely assemble and their second amendment right to defend that.
Jon Stewart brought this up and Dick Armey, whom I'm not that keen on, but he made this excellent point: All they've done so far is float candidates for office. Isn't this a democracy?

It kind of reminds me of that scene from Wayne's world about the guy with a grievance against the union. You guys remember the scene I don't have to post it.

Quote:
I don’t think there’s a liberal here who goes by the “pull the blue lever” mentality,

Sure there is, and there are red lever ones also. Vote for any republicans in this midterm Niki?

Quote:
I can’t know what you did during the Bush Administration

You can, because I was here. and this is all logged. I joined the Reform party and supported some candidates against him. Three of them actually, one in the primary 2004, and two third party candidates. I really wanted him to lose and even wrote a letter to Kerry detailing how to defeat Bush in 2004. It was based on lots of poll data we had collected at the RPUSA. We were pretty sure that if Kerry had been willing to take some simple positions like mentioning the torture, opposing the war, and the Bush Saudi connections, etc. There were 12 points in all of things we thought would slay the beast. Kerry's people weren't listening.

I'm not biased against the left, I'm giving you a much needed kick in the rear. Go, take back your party, it's running away from you, into Crazy Bush Land.

Quote:
There is no way WE can shake up the party.

There isn't?!!?!?!?

If a group of angry motivated voters can not radically alter the course of their own political party than why are you so worried about the influence of the Tea Party? Doesn't your above statement logically conclude that there is no way the Tea Party could have any effect on the GOP at all?

Quote:
If you think there is, please say so. I, for one, vote with my conscience as best I can (when there are only two viable choices, as in most of my life, I choose the “lesser of two evils”). I write e-mails, but most of MY representatives act in ways with which I agree (remember, Boxer voted AGAINST the wars). So I can write the Prez, which I do, but any LEGISLATORS I write to, aside from my own, don’t give diddly-squat what I have to say; I’m not their constituent. So tell us; how do we achieve what you’re suggesting?

Yes, there is: Make your own tea party. Organize. Become whatever independent progressive movement you want that can elect better democrats, that can oppose the war, oppose torture, etc.

You know WHY I gave up on the GOP? Because the brand name GOP was ruined by a bunch of assholes who attached it to torture and war and wasteful spending. So, yeah, the tea party is flawed, but at least someone is trying to do something. In order for me to accept them, they have to can the idea of hating Mexicans, but in order for them to listen to me, I have to be able to do something for them.

I'm not saying join my revolution. Be your own revolution. Organize progressives. Vote in low level primaries where you can actually win. Get a congressman or two who is called democrat but who will not only vote against these bad policies, but make a lot of noise about them. A Ron Paul level of noise. Dennis Kucinich is great, but shouldn't you have people who are even more progressive? Who don't just abstain from votes on the war, military contracts and the patriot act, but actually vote against them, and in doing so, make impassioned speeches which are then circulated on youtube?

It's not going to happen overnight, but maybe in 2016 you can have a candidate who actually would not consider nuclear war with Iran as a viable solution to the world's problems. If you can do that on your side, I'm sure going to try to do that on the other side, and if we get reasonable people who actually care about america, then damn, I don't care which party wins. Hell, I'll vote for your guy if my guy loses.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 2:10 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, I got through the whole thing, for the most part. My point was that the things you pointed out were done by the last administration and the Republicans as well as the Democrats. There are many DIFFERENCES I see, as well.

No, I'm not going to go out and start my own Tea Party; asking that of us isn't logical. I write, I vote, and that gives me the right to bitch and moan, as is true of every American. The Tea Party exists because of the economical situation and the fear engendered by savvy politicians. It's not a real movement in my opinion, and it will disintegrate once people realize a few unpleasant truths. They won seats because Americans are reacting to the situation Bush put us into and the fact that the Dems haven't been able to fix it all in two years. There winning isn't indicative of them as any kind of power. If you want to discuss it in six or eight years, it would be a valid discussion. They've been around less than two years at this point.

The question about square deal by the media was about the MSM, not Fox.

No, "right into office" is wrong. Palin didn't get in, nor did O'Donnel, Angel or others. I don't know exactly how many self-described "Tea Party Candidates" got into office, but I maintain that once people see their actions in office, they won't be there long.

Hinting about revolution, Second Amendment and "blood of patriots" isn't just asserting freedom of speech. It has a specific intent and I didn't hear any liberals hinting at it at any time previously. It's a manipulation of people's fear and anger.

As to "not an opening line",

A) I wasn't trying to persuade you of anything;
B) What I said was "I disagree with your premise", which is a perfectly valid thing to say in a debate.

Actually, yes, I did vote for two Republicans. Local ones.

Quote:
a candidate who actually would not consider nuclear war with Iran as a viable solution to the world's problems

I wasn't aware Obama was considering that.

I've had enough. I don't think you're hearing me, and I've got a headache from trying to wend my way through these long lectures. So I'll agree to disagree and let it go at that.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 5:58 PM

DREAMTROVE

Niki,

You're definitely not hearing me if you're not reading my posts.

Bitching and moaning won't get results

Democrats have been in power 4 years, not 2.

FOX is part of the MSM.

The Tea Party was started by Ron Paul, not moneyed interests. It accumulated those later. Power corrupts.

Obama is not considering negotiation, and has considered nuclear conflict, probably because he has Hillary. Bush considered it to. Obama gave israel the drones that it attacked Iran with a few months back, we had a thread on it, but the attack failed, all the drones were shot down before they could hit nuclear sites.

I don't think Obama is a strong Israel supporter though, and I think that fact is causing him to get bad press.

I don't dislike Obama, I just disagree with him.

Let's just call the whole thing off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE